You say that the last place team unloaded Oswalt... is this a keeper league where Oswalt cannot be kept by the last place team next year? If it is, then it is a very fair trade. If not, then that trade stinks but is still not vetoable.
Leagues should really have provisions in place to incentivize teams at the bottom to not give up or do shady things - in our league, we pay out the top 5 teams... then the 6th place team gets the 1st draft pick next year, 7th place gets the 2nd draft pick, down to the last place team who gets the 7th pick. Gives teams something to play for.
"The government cannot give to anyone anything that it does not first take from someone else"
Depending on needs and if its a keeper league, you might be able to make a case. Still, it does seem very coincidental that the team in last made such a radical move with a top contender.
I would be a little upset too, but I wouldn't veto it. Markakis has put up solid numbers, and Oswalt hasn't been great. Take out their names (and their potential), and you're looking at a pretty even trade.
Jockpunk wrote:Trade just went down in my league. Last place team unloaded oswalt to the third. I'm not thrilled. Do I have a legit gripe.
What did their needs look like....did each team benefit or does it look like an attempt to move that 3rd place team up the charts? Alot of times it doesn't matter who the players are in a trade but what the team needs are and how it helps each team.....or how it helps just 1 team and was a pointless trade for the other team. On the outside it doesn't look good but if the team trading Oswalt away has WW material in the OF and he has Peavy, Santana, Smoltz and Hamels in his SP then it doesn't matter if he loses Oswalt and he upgrades his OF. Just because he could get more than Markakis for his Oswalt isn't for you too decide, if thats who he wants then so be it.
I've never really understood the "helped both teams" argument, at least when it comes to lopsided trades. The bottom line is that all things being equal, the guy trading Oswalt could have gotten a LOT more than Markakis and still filled his needs. If this is a standard, non-keeper league where the last place team has nothing to gain, then its an ugly trade no matter what - but barely close enough to not be vetoable.
"The government cannot give to anyone anything that it does not first take from someone else"
It would be vetoed in my league for sure. Regardless of whether or not this helps both teams you could get a much better OF for Oswalt based on his past performances.
Bloody Sox wrote:I've never really understood the "helped both teams" argument, at least when it comes to lopsided trades. The bottom line is that all things being equal, the guy trading Oswalt could have gotten a LOT more than Markakis and still filled his needs. If this is a standard, non-keeper league where the last place team has nothing to gain, then its an ugly trade no matter what - but barely close enough to not be vetoable.
True but an owner making a stupid trade should not be basis for a veto. It happens in MLB all the time.
"Think of how stupid the average person is, and realize half of them are stupider than that." ~George Carlin
Cafe Home
Fantasy Football
Fantasy Basketball
Fantasy Hockey
by Jockpunk » Tue Jun 12, 2007 9:20 am 
